XIXAX Film Forum

Quentin Tarantino Says He's Doing A Western Next, But It's Not A 'Django Unchained' Sequel

Quentin Tarantino was a guest on The Tonight Show last night, and while discussing the strange intricacies of his creative process, he offered Jay Leno a little insight into his next movie project. With the success of Django Unchained, Tarantino is going to stick with the Western genre, but this next movie will be nothing like Django, except that it will probably feature a lot of famous actors in strangely goofy roles.

“I can’t talk that much about it, but I will say one thing – I haven’t told anyone about this publicly, but I will say the genre. It’s a western. It’s not a Django sequel, but it’s another Western. I had so much fun doing Django and I love westerns so much, that after I taught myself how to make one, it’s like ‘OK, now let me make another one now that I know what I’m doing.’”

For his first movie since 2012's Django Unchained, the director is going back to the Western genre with a script called The Hateful Eight, which he hopes to direct this summer, according to sources. (Another source said there is no timetable at this stage.)

The title suggests Tarantino could be upping the ante, playing off the title of John Sturges' 1960 film The Magnificent Seven, which in turn was a remake of Akira Kurosawa's 1954 Seven Samurai.

No one has been cast yet, but Tarantino has reached out to veteran casting director Victoria Thomas, who worked on Django, to work with him on casting the movie, say several insiders. A part has been written for Christoph Waltz, who starred in Tarantino's Django and Inglourious Basterds.

Pilar Savone, who served as a producer on Django and acted as an associate producer on Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds and Death Proof after being his assistant, is producing Hateful Eight.

It’s unclear who is financing and who will distribute, although the Weinstein Co. is the most likely candidate to be involved in both capacities, due to its long-standing relationship with the filmmaker.

In November, Tarantino revealed that he was working on a new script and that it would be a Western. But he didn’t reveal a title or suggest a timetable for making it. Tarantino has in the past mentioned projects he was working on but ended up shelving them. Basterds famously took a decade to hit the screen as he worked and reworked the script.

"I had so much fun doing Django, and I love westerns so much that after I taught myself how to make one, it's like 'OK! Let me make another one now that I know what I'm doing,'" Tarantino told Jay Leno in November when he appeared on The Tonight Show.

Tarantino has long loved the Western genre and in the post-Pulp Fiction era in the mid-to-late 1990s tried to adapt Elmore Leonard’s 40 Lashes Less One, about two prisoners, an Apache and a black soldier, who must hunt down five outlaws to earn their freedom.

Didn't Django leak early too? a ton of shit in that draft didn't make it in. I had a lot of fun reading that. The only drawback was knowing the exact moment *spoiler* candie dies *end spoiler*. This is too bad, but I have to say Westerns are not my favorite genre, and I'd hate to see QT get bogged down in one thing. Ready for something out of left field and amazing like Jackie Brown.

Quentin Tarantino’s ‘Hateful Eight’ Script: He Wanted 70mm, and Other Details of the Bloody WesternTheWrap obtained a copy of Tarantino’s script that’s making its way around Hollywood

Quentin Tarantino had planned to shoot his next movie, a tense, contained and very bloody Western centered on bounty hunters and titled “The Hateful Eight,” using 70-millimeter stock, a rare and expensive high-definition film, according to a copy of the script obtained by TheWrap.

The movie opens on a sprawling Wyoming vista, and Tarantino sets the scene: “A breathtaking 70MM filmed (as is the whole movie) snow covered mountain range.” But the story quickly shifts indoors, and stays there — in fact, the script reads more like a tense stage play than a sweeping Western film.

Tarantino has angrily scrapped plans to make the movie because the script leaked, and Hollywood assistants are now promulgating a link anyone can use to download a PDF of the script that will no doubt end up online in the coming days. Tarantino accused agents for one of the three actors he had met with for parts — Bruce Dern, Tim Roth and Michael Madsen — though he seemed to suspect it was Dern’s team at CAA.

CAA denied it was the culprit, and the WME-repped Tarantino said he would still happily work with Dern. Interesting side-note: Tarantino said he was scrapping the project, for now, after Harvey Weinstein said he would be more mindful of the violence in his films.

The script is an ensemble Western with obvious parts for Madsen and Dern, as well as Tarantino stalwarts like Samuel L. Jackson and Christoph Waltz. Jackson and Madsen would likely both play bounty hunters returning human plunder to a town called Red Rock in exchange for hefty rewards. Their characters, a former major in the Union army and a man named John Ruth, dominate the first two of the script’s five chapters.

They run into a Southerner named Chris Mannix on the road, and three of them, along with their driver — a living prisoner and three dead bounties strapped to the roof — arrive at a haberdashery to take shelter from an oncoming blizzard. Yet the proprietors, Minnie, Sweet Dave and her other colleagues, are nowhere to be found. In their place are four men, a Southern general (likely Dern), an alleged hangman, a Frenchman named Bob and a cowboy named Joe Gage.

Mistrust, coffee and violence ensue.

We won’t say where it goes from there, but Tarantino makes frequent references to it being shot in 70-milimeter, a format recently used by Paul Thomas Anderson in “The Master.” The choice makes a great deal of sense for a sprawling Western, a genre Tarantino was going to revisit after the success of his most recent film (and his first western), “Django Unchained.”

Yet this one is set almost entirely in two settings – a stagecoach and the haberdashery. That is a much smaller canvas than Taratino usually works on, but the bloody, sharply written, typo-filled script is vintage Quentin. There’s a little Russian roulette, some vomit and frequent duplicity.

The five chapters are “Last Stage to Red Rock,” “Son of A Gun,” “Minnie’s,” ‘The Four Pasggengers” and “Black night, White Hell.” Here’s an image of the one section Tarantino crossed out, so as not to ruin anything. Oswaldo is the hangman and Domergue a prisoner.

I guess that's why he threw a hissy fit, because it got out in no time? He needs to talk to the Breaking Bad people about how they protect their scripts. Part of me thinks he wanted this to happen to see how popular his published work could be. It just seems a little too convenient that this was announced and denounced in the span of like two weeks.

hey only added to the master. i get the impression it was a draft or two later that he shot and didn't concern himself with people reading whatever leaked at any given point. nobody should write based on what people have seen or not seen, just tell the best story possible imo.

interestingly, i read the master and django at the same time, a year before they came out. why didn't tarantino go up in arms about the django leak? oh well, you never know with this guy, he's always making claims to stuff and then doing the opposite. wouldn't be surprised when he chills out, he goes ahead and makes the film anyway.

I don't think his problem is that the script leaked, it's more about like it leaking when he only gave it to a handful of people. I suppose he's trying to say something about trust in the business or something. I would even go as far as to say he was doing something great by not going ahead with the project, if we were talking about someone other than Tarantino, who just loves this kind of thing. But complaining about that while at the same time admiting that he's willing to work with the same people who supposedly did this to him is just weird.

BREAKING: Quentin Tarantino is taking Gawker Media to court after the snarky website brazenly posted a link to The Hateful Eight, the first draft screenplay whose leak prompted Tarantino to say he would shelve the film. Tarantino has filed a formal legal complaint this morning in U.S. District Court, Central District Of California Western Division (read it here). The legal complaint charges Gawker with copyright infringement and contributory copyright infringement. Tarantino’s case will be led by hard-nosed litigator Martin Singer.

Here is the crux of the legal complaint obtained by Deadline: “Gawker Media has made a business of predatory journalism, violating people’s right to make a buck. This time they’ve gone too far. Rather than merely publishing a news story reporting that Plaintiff’s screenplay may have been circulating in Hollywood without his permission, Gawker Media crossed the journalistic line by promoting itself to the public as the first source to read the entire screenplay illegally. Their headline boasts, ‘Here is the leaked Quentin Tarantino Hateful Eight Script’ — here, not someplace else, but ‘here’ on the Gawker website. The article then contains multiple direct links for downloading the entire screenplay through a conveniently anonymous URL by simply clicking button-links on the Gawker page, and brazenly encourages Gawker visitors to read the screenplay illegally with an invitation to ‘enjoy’ it. There was nothing newsworthy or journalistic about Gawker Media facilitating and encouraging the public’s violation of Plaintiff’s copyright in the screenplay, and its conduct will not shield Gawker Media from liability for their unlawful activity.”

The complaint alleges that Gawker declined to take down the post, or the URL that encouraged readers to download Tarantino’s screenplay.

This development happened after Tarantino told Deadline Hollywood exclusively that he was so frustrated to learn that someone among a handful of people to whom he gave the first draft script, leaked it. He had planned to write another project, and direct the two movies back to back. Instead, he said he would publish his Hateful Eight script, an ensemble Western, and revisit its movie prospects several years down the road. He said he will make that other project next.

In the legal complaint filed by his attorney, Tarantino maintains that Gawker solicited its readers to provide a copy of the script. Shortly after, the post in question appeared with an invitation to its readers to help themselves to the screenplay. I’ve not heard of a lawsuit quite like this one, but in this day and age when digital theft of copyrighted intellectual property is rampant, it will be an interesting scrape to follow, particularly if this becomes a full blown lawsuit. I’ll have more, soon.

In 2012, Gawker was asked by Lena Dunham’s attorney to take down a post that published Dunham’s 66-page book proposal that sold to Random House for $3.5 million. The site did so “on the recommendation from Gawker’s legal department.”

Quentin Tarantino’s Shelved ‘Hateful Eight’ Script To Get Live Reading In LABY Deadline

Quentin Tarantino is still bringing The Hateful Eight to his fans — even though the Oscar winner put aside making the movie for the time being after the Oscar winner’s latest script leaked online. Film Independent said today that Tarantino is set to direct and cast a live on-stage reading of the Western-themed script on April 24 in LA. None of the performers have been named, but the event is set for 8 PM at the LA County Museum of Art. Given Hateful Eight‘s high-profile status thanks to the leak and Tarantino’s angry reaction to it, this is a real coup for Film Independent, the org that has curated the live script-reading program for the past few years. “We are thrilled that Quentin will be holding the world premiere staged reading of his script of The Hateful Eight with Film Independent at LACMA,” said Film Independent president Josh Welsh in announcing the news today. “We offer unique cinematic experiences to the people of Los Angeles, and this event is going to deliver just that.”

On January 27, Tarantino launched a $1 million copyright lawsuit against Gawker after the site posted a story about the leaked script with a link to the script itself. Now a select few will get to hear and see it in addition to those that read it online. No spoilers here, but the Hateful Eight story focuses on a stagecoach and its passengers stranded during a blizzard. This being Tarantino, the group includes a couple of bounty hunters, a Confederate soldier and a female prisoner in a secluded saloon. Even at $200 a pop with a limit of two tickets each for members of Film Independent, the LACMA Film Club and the NYT Film Club and everyone else, there’s no doubt tickets for this one will be gone faster than a shot of whiskey in the Old West. Tickets for members go on sale Wednesday, while the general public, students and LACMA members can buy them April 16. All proceeds go to the good cause of helping out Film Independent’s programming efforts at LACMA.

Inside Tarantino's 'Hateful Eight' Reading: Director Reveals He's Writing Second Draft, With New EndingSamuel L. Jackson, Tim Roth, Bruce Dern, and others do a rollicking read of the leaked script in LA, featuring many N-words, forced oral sex, and an ending that supposedly will never be repeated.Source: THR

Quentin Tarantino told a standing-room-only crowd gathered for a staged reading of his latest film script, The Hateful Eight, that this was the one and only time they would see it with the current ending, in which all of the movie’s major characters die.

Speaking to an eclectic crowd that included only a handful of prominent industry-ites (among them Harvey Weinstein and Tarantino’s WME agent, Mike Simpson), he said the movie was divided into five parts, or “chapters,” and that “I am working right now on a second draft. This is the first draft.”

He said Chapter 5 (which he titled "Black Night, White Hell") would be removed or rewritten altogether. That move may have been spurred by the script being leaked, and a subsequent lawsuit Tarantino has filed against Gawker for disseminating it online.

The audience members assembled April 19 at the Theatre at the Ace Hotel in downtown Los Angeles -- many of whom had paid up to $200 apiece for tickets, with revenues benefiting Film Independent -- were rapturous as film critic Elvis Mitchell introduced Tarantino shortly after 8 pm, Pacific Time. Dressed in a red-trimmed black shirt and black cowboy hat, the writer-director in turn introduced nine cast members, among them two of his most beloved stars -- Samuel L. Jackson and Tim Roth -- along with Kurt Russell, Amber Tamblyn and Bruce Dern, among others.

With Tarantino reading stage directions from a podium, the actors (who also included Walton Goggins, James Parks, Michael Madsen and James Remar) began to read the entire, three-hour-plus screenplay, a Western set somewhere between eight and 12 years after the Civil War, which begins with Russell as a bounty hunter chained to his prey, Tamblyn, inside a stage coach as they travel toward a destination where he will collect a $10,000 reward for her.

The stagecoach is stopped by an African-American Civil War veteran (Jackson), who mysteriously appears with a saddle but no horse; they are then joined by another mystery man who claims to be going into town as its new sheriff, before all eventually take refuge from a blizzard in a “haberdashery” where almost all of the remaining story unfolds -- that is, four of the five chapters take place almost entirely within one room.

What follows is a combination of Western and Agatha Christie-style whodunnit, as various men and women engage in conversation and shootings in the haberdashery -- not least Dern, who plays a Civil War general whose son appears to have been killed by Jackson.

In one of the many moments when the audience roared its approval, Jackson explains in exquisite and excruciating detail how he forced the general’s son to perform oral sex on him before killing him.

Much of the later part of the story hinges on a coffee pot that has been filled with poison by one of the people in the room, and by Jackson’s attempt to discover who did it. Along the way, Tarantino uses flashbacks, and then more flashbacks, to reveal backstory -- along with scenes in equal parts comic and violent.

The script is laced with both the “f” word and the “n” word, and Tarantino turned to the audience when the “n” word was used for the first time, joking that this was just the first of more than 200 such uses in the screenplay (a wild exaggeration, as it happened).

More than once, he became slightly impatient with his cast, on one occasion reprimanding one who was slow to get on stage, and on another telling his actors: “Guys are starting to drift a little away from the dialog. Bring it back to the page. No co-writing.” The reading was as revealing of Tarantino the director as it was Tarantino the writer.

The scene that drew the most laughter followed the poisoning, as one character after another retched gruesomely and bloodily onto the others before dying. But it is the shoot-out at the end and the deaths of all the characters that are likely to inspire the most talk, as this is the part Tarantino says he will change -- just how, he didn’t reveal.

crazy how instantly ripe the new dtown ace hotel has gone. under the skin's city premiere was also a massive hit and at ace. other cities have ace, maybe yours, it's very hipster central. this one has a historical theater i've only seen empty and dark, but i bet they make it pretty

crazy how instantly ripe the new dtown ace hotel has gone. under the skin's city premiere was also a massive hit and at ace. other cities have ace, maybe yours, it's very hipster central. this one has a historical theater i've only seen empty and dark, but i bet they make it pretty

EXCLUSIVE: It does seem as though Quentin Tarantino’s “The Hateful Eight” will roll this November. Sources I’ve talked to have said the cast will gather in Wyoming to begin shooting then. That cast will include Samuel L. Jackson, Bruce Dern, Michael Madsen, and all the actors who recently participated in the live reading of “Hateful Eight” that took place after the script was “leaked.” Those would be also Kurt Russell, James Remar, Amber Tamblyn, Walt Goggins, and Zoe Bell.

Sadly, two time Oscar winner Christoph Waltz is not in this movie after his award winning performances in “Inglorious Basterds” and “Django Unchained.”

Yesterday Tarantino did say he’d “calmed down” after the shock of the leak and subsequent lawsuit he filed against Gawker. He said he was doing his second rewrite and a third would follow. So a November start date sounds just about right. At least the opening scenes take place in Wyoming where Tarantino also shot a lot of “Django Unchained.”

well shit, i'd calmed down from being excited about this movie and i was excited about what the newer one would be. dicey move qt. you so ace baby, but you said you had a treasure box of ideas, and now you look like you're clinging to your one golden nugget

This all takes away from the coolness of that first poster and somehow feels a bit desperate...

Remember the tag when "Kill Bill Vol. 1" came out?"The 4th film from Quentin Tarantino"I remember people joking that the tagline for the next Altman film would be "The 75th film from Robert Altman"

The hype kind of killed THAT movie for me, for nearly a decade. I love it now, but it did take the wind of it's sails back in the day. Back when KB was released, it was Tarantino's first flick in 5 years, and many of us were looking for Pulp Fiction 2.0. Instead we got something different. Some (myself included) weren't sure what to make of it. Here, at least we've had two solid films filmed and released at a steady pace, with a third on the way.

Smacks of desperation? i half agree, although at this point, many of us are just in it to see the movie and judge for ourselves, not worry about the audience's perceptions at large, and maybe, sadly, some other college freshman will think too highly of this film before watching it and come out disappointed like a younger version of myself. I'd hope the studio would be confident enough in QT to know that he has a fan base, and it constantly grows when young people are introduced to his work and become invested in it. So I hope the tagline isn't some execs' reaching to find a new audience, or assure it's current audience that they're in the hands of an academy-worthy master filmmaker.

from avclub: (http://www.avclub.com/article/hateful-eight-officially-has-its-cast-yes-channing-211521)

As we told you yesterday, Channing Tatum has been gunning for a role in Quentin Tarantino’s The Hateful Eight, and Channing Tatum gets what Channing Tatum wants, even if he has to dress up like a SWAT officer with a poor understanding of safety protocol to get it. This was presumably not necessary, and it was on the basis of his acting talent that Tatum was officially offered a role in the now-finalized cast of Tarantino’s eighth film.

Mexican actor Demian Bichir, who was nominated for an Oscar in 2012 for his role in A Better Life, has also joined the cast. According to Variety, that means your Hateful Eight are:

The nature of ninth wheel Tatum’s role has not yet been revealed, but we assume he’s a pretty agreeable guy. This will be Tatum, Bichir, and Leigh’s first trip to the Tarantinoverse. Production on The Hateful Eight is set to begin in Colorado next month.

EXCLUSIVE: The lack of action at AFM is attributable in part to foreign buyer distraction over the fest’s A + title, Quentin Tarantino’s The Hateful Eight. I am hearing offers are five deep for just about every territory and that the auction will be resolved by week’s end. That means big distributors aren’t focusing on much else. All this began when the director himself strode into a Casa Del Mar ballroom filled with buyers late last week. Flanked by Harvey Weinstein and cast members Walton Goggins, Samuel L. Jackson, Kurt Russell and Jennifer Jason Leigh, Tarantino stoked the fires by regaling prospective offshore distributors with his grand plans. All had read most of Tarantino’s shooting script and knew the set-up: eight hate-filled firebrands from the Old West hole up in an establishment to seek shelter from a blizzard. The talk is as tough as the food. some use harsh language merely to vent while others come out vented by bullets, and nobody knows who is lying. Tarantino focused on many things in his talk–including a proclamation he’ll definitely retire after his tenth film—but his main goal was to make offshore distributors his accomplices in a plan to establish The Hateful Eight as such an epic 70mm effort that it will remind the world why, compared to film, digital projection is like coming to a gun fight with a knife instead of a six-shooter.

“If we do our jobs right by making this film a 70 mm event, we will remind people why this is something you can’t see on television, and how this is an experience you can’t have when you watch movies in your apartment, your man cave or your iPhone or iPad,” Tarantino said. “You’ll see 24 frames per second play out, all these wonderfully painted pictures create the illusion of movement. I’m hoping it’s going to stop the momentum of the digital stuff, and that people will hopefully go, ‘Man, that is going to the movies, and that is worth saving and we need to see more of that.”

I moderated the talk with Tarantino right after he’d finalized a cast that includes Bruce Dern, Tim Roth, Michael Madsen, Demian Bichir and Channing Tatum. Goggins, Jackson, Russell and Leigh were aglow from a table read days before in which bounty hunters, confederate generals, lawmen and a lady outlaw trade salty banter that seems headed for the trademark Tarantino violent climax (nobody was shown the film’s last chapter). The big surprise to me was that the inspiration for Tarantino’s first real Western wasn’t some John Wayne, Peckinpah or Clint Eastwood screen classic, but rather the TV series that dominated the 60s prime time network landscape and provided early jobs for actors that included Russell and Dern.

I have not read the script, but why has no one considered John C. Reilly as a...“It’s less inspired by one Western movie than by Bonanza, The Virginians, High Chaparral,” Tarantino said. “Twice per season, those shows would have an episode where a bunch of outlaws would take the lead characters hostage. They would come to the Ponderosa and hold everybody hostage, or to go Judge Garth’s place–Lee J. Cobb played him–in The Virginians, and take hostages. There would be a guest star like David Carradine, Darren McGavin, Claude Akins, Robert Culp, Charles Bronson or James Coburn. I don’t like that storyline in a modern context, but I love it in a Western where you would pass halfway through the show to find out if they were good or bad guys, and they all had a past that was revealed. “I thought, what if I did a movie starring nothing but those characters? No heroes, no Michael Landons. Just a bunch of nefarious guys in a room, all telling back stories that may or may not be true. Trap those guys together in a room with a blizzard outside, give them guns, and see what happens.”

From the partial script I read, the back and forth between those ornery characters–it was six years after the Civil War, when everybody was pissed about something– has Tarantino’s trademark macho lyricism. After that table reading, it was clear the cast members present were already getting started on each other, and on Tarantino.

After Leigh said how much she sparked to her outlaw character, and how fresh and original Tarantino’s dialogue felt to her, Jackson butted in with a retort that left the room in stitches.

“Not all the dialogue felt that fresh and new to me,” he said. “The first words to my character are, “Howdy, n*gger.’ I feel like some version of this has been said to me before.”

After Tarantino scanned the crowd of buyers, he noted “there are a whole lot of people in this room who helped build my career over 20 years, outside of the last two movies. As good as my films do in America, they do better overseas and part of that has been how you guys sold Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill.”

Russell jumped in quickly: “What about Death Proof?”

And when Leigh lamented that Tarantino had brought her into his repertory company just in time to hear he was not far from retiring, both Russell and Jackson opened fire.

“You don’t actually believe that s*it, do you,” Russell asked everybody. Added Jackson: “What’s Quentin going to do with himself if he’s not doing this?”

Tarantino said his days would consist of “writing plays and books, going gracefully into my tender years.”

Despite the audience opposition to that notion, Tarantino said he was serious.

“I don’t believe you should stay on stage until people are begging you to get off,” he said. “I like the idea of leaving them wanting a bit more. I do think directing is a young man’s game and I like the idea of an umbilical cord connection from my first to my last movie. I’m not trying to ridicule anyone who thinks differently, but I want to go out while I’m still hard…I like that I will leave a ten-film filmography, and so I’ve got two more to go after this. It’s not etched in stone, but that is the plan. If I get to the tenth, do a good job and don’t screw it up, well that sounds like a good way to end the old career. If, later on, I come across a good movie, I won’t not do it just because I said I wouldn’t. But ten and done, leaving them wanting more, that sounds right.”

Tarantino got serious in speaking about his motives for putting foreign territories up for grabs at AFM after Sony released his last film Django Unchained overseas and Universal released the one before it, Inglourious Basterds, internationally. “I didn’t want to split it up the way I did the last two movies,” Tarantino said. “Harvey Weinstein wanted the whole damn thing, he said, ‘Quentin, just give me the ball and let me run with it and I’ll go back to all your old friends, the ones who helped build your career.’ We are not simply looking to sell to the highest bidder; this is a very special release and you know your markets better than we do. Once you hear what we want, and how much we want to push the whole 70 mm thing, we want you to come back and tell us, ‘Okay, this is how we think it will work best in Spain, or Scandinavia or Latin America. I was down with that idea. This film needs special attention and we want your expertise, telling us the best way we can achieve what we want to in each market.”

Several times in the script, shots are described as being depicted in “glorious 70 mm.” That isn’t just lip service, Tarantino said. Christopher Nolan—another film stock proponent who along with Tarantino and a few others convinced Kodak to keep making more—gave theaters with film capable projectors an exclusive early window to display Interstellar. Tarantino plans to take it even further.

“I know this business has gone digital, even more in foreign countries than in America where it’s 90%,” he said. “Digital presentation is just television in public, we’re all just getting together and watching TV without pointing the remote control at the screen. I have worked 20 years, too long to accept the diminishing results of having it come into theaters with the quality of a f*cking DVD, shot with the same sh*t they shoot soap operas with. It’s just not good enough for me.

“I thought, how can I make them show [the beauty of] film? Well, I can shoot in 70 mm and leave them asking, what’s the point of showing it any other way? I had a plan and asked the Weinsteins to tell me how it could be realized. Now that film has become endangered, and the theatrical experience is become more and more a throwaway, what we could do was go back to the 60s style, when there were big road show productions of big films like The Sand Pebbles, Mutiny On The Bounty, Battle Of The Bulge, or It’s A Mad Mad Mad Mad World. There would be an exclusive engagement in 70 mm in a big theater or opera house that would play for a month. It felt like a night at the theater or the symphony. Then they would cut it down and it would show up at the theaters and the drive-ins, near you.”

That is Tarantino’s template.

“We’re doing this 70 mm, and we are trying to create an event,” he said. “I need to know from all of you if this can last a month in your territory in that format, or two weeks. Then we roll it out in 35 and eventually digital. We’re not doing the usual 70 mm, where you shoot 35 mm and blow it up. We’re shooting 65 mm which, when you turn it into a print, is 70mm. Panavision is not only behind this movie, they look at it as a legacy. They are inventing a lot of the stuff we need, and this is being supervised by my three-time Oscar winning cinematographer Bob Richardson, who’s back with me and after Kill Bill, Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. I couldn’t do this if he wasn’t in my corner. He want to Panavision to check out lenses for this big Sherman Tank of a camera he’ll use. He goes into the warehouse room and sees all these big crazy lenses. He asks, what are those? It was the ultra-Panavision lenses that haven’t been used since How The West Was Won, Mutiny On The Bounty, Battle Of The Bulge and It’s A Mad Mad Mad Mad World, which were all bigger than the normal 70 mm. If the normal scope is 235, this is 278, the widest frame possible on film. The projectors need a decoder, an adapter, to blow it out that way. That’s why Mad Mad World, Battle Of The Bulge and Ice Station Zebra look the way they do. The last movie to use these lenses was Khartoum with Charlton Heston and Laurence Olivier. We’re using those lenses for this movie. We’ve been testing them the last month and everything is A-ok. They look amazing. We are literally coming out with the biggest wide screen movie shot in the last 40 years.”

The crowd responded enthusiastically to Tarantino’s grand ambition. To the actors, this was more about a filmmaker and a script good enough for them to endure the cold of the Colorado Rocky Mountains this winter.

“They had an incredibly wet summer so we should have an incredibly snowy winter,” Tarantino enthused. “Should be deep snow, the Rockies right behind us, and part of the idea for shooting it out there is that cold makes for misery.” Turning to Jackson, he said, “I want to see a little misery in this man’s eyes. Every line of dialogue, I want it to be punctuated by hot breath.”

The cast sounded game, though Russell noted that the camera always froze up in his last tundra experience on The Thing. Leigh said an outlaw character she loved more than life would sustain her through the cold, and Jackson and Goggins said they were up for anything Tarantino can throw at them.

“I’d rather shoot in the tropics but when I did Long Kiss Goodnight, the average temperature in the heat of the day was -37 degrees,” he said. “I’ve spent four and a half months in the cold before.”

Goggins, not an ounce of fat on him from filming the swan song of his Boyd Crowder character in the final season of FX’s Justified, said he would have to gain some weight to withstand the cold. But he’d do anything Tarantino asked of him.

“That’s the fire inside, and Quentin’s the kind of general you follow anywhere, and provide whatever he demands of you,” Goggins said. “On Django Unchained it was hot, hot, hot in New Orleans, sitting on a horse for 14 hours a day. You sign on for a Quentin Tarantino movie, you’re in with the best and you expect to be put in extreme conditions, physically and psychologically. Game On.”

Jackson and the others indicated that the key temperature is the one they began to achieve at the table read, where good actors first collided over strong dialogue that has the chance to be memorable when so little these days is.

“Movies tend to be a show me process, and you read a lot of what you’re going to do, running, diving, looking this way or that,” Jackson said. “When you get a Tarantino script, you get dialogue that expresses who you are, how you feel about things, and how others feel, and you develop relationships in the midst of all that. You get to say some pretty interesting and dynamic things. I’ve always loved a monologue. I’m one of those look at me people. When I did plays, my only regret was I couldn’t watch those plays with me in them. I’m not one of those actors who say, ‘oh I can’t stand to watch myself.’ Bullsh*t. I love watching myself, and I really love watching myself in Quentin Tarantino movies. When I’m at home, flipping channels and I come across a Quentin film I’m in, I’m stopping to watch. I appreciate him for that.

“I’ve missed doing monologues and especially with him because he loves it so much. We’ve had to stop, and yell cut, because he’s laughing over my motherfu*king lines. He’ll be making some noise and I’ll be like, [voice goes high] what’s up motherfu*ker? He has a Shakespearean literary prowess tapered for the cinema. He writes what we want to say and what people in the audience want to hear. It’s a real blessing to have said a lot of the things that he’s written. People can go through their careers and nobody remembers one line they’ve said. There’s not a day goes by that I don’t see someone on the street, feeding some Quentin Tarantino line back at me. That is the sign that something’s going to last.”

wanna go ahead and admit it just took this one ew cover to make me forgive qt for whatever bothers me about this movie. so i can't remember last week but now i look forward to this movie and appreciate qt overall

That reminds me of something I heard Kumail Nanjiani say on The X-Files Files just yesterday. Production and promotional stills can look very dumb without film lighting. This EW covers looks like a group of actors wearing silly costumes. Then the same people wearing the very same costumes will look amazing in the actual thing.

I try to avoid most promotional things, but especially for Tarantino because the marketing is so over saturated for his films. I also really regretted how much I already knew about Django going in and would like to try enjoying one more of his films with the clean slate I had seeing Reservoir Dogs for the first time.

This looks bad, I am referring the cinematography. Richardson's style does not fit this story, it did not fit Django Unchained and it did not fit Inglorious Basterds, it did work for Kill Bill.

This looks to clean, and polished. The costumes and the beards are not working for me. I am glad Jennifer Jason Leigh is in this movie though, thats exciting. She is always playing these battered women, ( Last Exit to Brooklyn)

Nice to see Kurt Russell in the movie.

I dont understand why Tarantino did not shoot Django Unchained on 2perf but that is neither here nor there. I really really wish he would link back up with Sekula, I watch the stuff he did with him and its fucking amazing, a true marriage made in heaven! I also noticed that Sekula shot American Psycho and I really enjoyed the whole entire look of that film. I wish Tarantino would devout more time to his films looks. I love Q.T but I do not know why he feels compelled to RUSH his movies. Inglorious Basterds was rushed and severely mis-casted, with the exception of Hugo Stiglitz. Django had some production issues with people dropping out and the whole Broomhilida sequence with her fat owner was GOLD but excised for whatever reason..that sequence had a cool reference to Death Rides a Horse and was a KILLER introduction to Calvin Candie, also I don't know why Q.T cut some of the violence out of the movie, I remember hearing a report that Savani helped KNR with a effect with regards to a dismemberment scene with the runaway slave and the dogs.. Overall that movie had no traces of Spaghetti western influence or for that matter western influences. I did like that split diopter shot, it was very De Palma esque, this shot happens @ Big Daddy's plantation...

Its great that Quentin Tarantino is shooting on 65mm, I hope the whole film is shoot on 65mm. Is it VistaVision, there was a great article on VistaVision in a recent issue of Cinema Retro, great read. I believe that was Paramounts widescreen format, rather short lived but a truly revolutionary and intriguing camera movement. The film moves horizontally as apposed to vertically like in 16mm, 35mm and 65mm, pretty cool.

'The Hateful Eight' Sets Christmas Day Release, 2 Week 70mm Roadshow To Be Followed By Digital Wide Releasevia The Playlist

While up to fifty U.S. theaters are reportedly being retro-fitted with projectors to screen Quentin Tarantino's "The Hateful Eight" on glorious 70mm as he intends it to be seen, the crushing reality is that for most moviegoers, his western will arrive as a digital experience. But it's admirable that The Weinstein Company is putting forth the effort and commitment to present Tarantino's film as a big screen extravaganza.

Purported release dates have been floating around for a while now, but Variety reveals that "The Hateful Eight" will open in cinemas on Christmas Day. The plan is for "The Hateful Eight" to travel in a two-week roadshow style exhibition in 70mm, before going wide digitally everywhere on January 8th. The exact dates and cities for the 70mm showing haven't been revealed, but you'll have a pretty decent window to catch it in that format if you want. So don't plan to stray too far from home this holiday season.

Tarantino says it's funnier than the other three wintry westerns thought of that day:

Quote

“I can definitely say that as bleak as our movie is, we are definitely the funniest snow Western ever made,” says Tarantino. “This is funnier than The Great Silence, it’s funnier than Day of the Outlaw.”

Okay. But is it funnier than [clink link for spoiler] “Oh, yeah, funnier than McCabe & Mrs. Miller.”

I want to make one announcement that people don’t know yet. It wasn’t for sure, but we just settled it. You guys know that I don’t use an original score in my movies, I kinda take scores from other movies and put ‘em in there. This one, I thought should have an original score. So I’m here to announce that the great Ennio Morricone will be doing the score for The Hateful Eight. He’s writing right now, and recording in Prague in the next couple of weeks.

Yea, he's been circling historical genre drama's for too long now. I would like him to no budget a film set somewhere in present day and be forced to completely out write a film as a means to make it. I think Death Proof is underrated and whenever I find myself watching films of his, I actually enjoy that one most - when it comes to what he's done in last 15 years.

Yeah. I don't even care for snow in 70mm. Anyway, I'm sure it will be good! I like Tarantino.

it's probably gonna be good, yeah. I like him as well.

but I agree with gold trumpet. it would be great if he did some smaller budget films and didn't care about if the films fits the "tarantino world" or not. I know that he wants a coherent style through his films but I think it does more harm than good. wouldn't it be great if he just did an allen for the next 10 year and didn't overthink his films as much?

it would be great if he did some smaller budget films ... wouldn't it be great if he just did an allen for the next 10 year and didn't overthink his films as much?

There are tons of filmmakers out there making semi-interesting projects for no money. Quentin is one of the ONLY people left who can command a real budget for an original, unique, crazy, balls-to-the-wall story. Why the hell would we want to impose such unnecessary limitations on an artist with such a huge imagination? An artist who has already done PLENTY of low-budget work and doesn't have to prove anything on that count.

I think Death Proof is underrated and whenever I find myself watching films of his, I actually enjoy that one most - when it comes to what he's done in last 15 years.

That is bananas. It's fun, but to me Grindhouse is basically just him and Rodriguez sitting on their hands and jerking off for three hours. I'm glad it bombed and QT and RR essentially parted ways; I think he was a bad influence on Quentin, who has done career-best work since then. If you watch the El Rey interview above they basically discuss how cocky they were before the release of that film, and how it's failure snapped QT of it. I don't one of the greatest modern filmmakers to waste his talents on B-movies, I don't care how much of a hard-on he has for them.

I think a solid conclusion to take from Gold Trumpet's post is the worst fucking thing QT can do will feel like magic anyway.

As a movie person it's irrational to my nature to not be excited about this movie. When I got mad at QT claiming to not care about not making this movie, saying he has many great ideas he'll pursue instead, then held the reading for this movie and everyone loved the reading and he felt again he simply had to make this movie, and later said he got grumpy because he didn't like a script being leaked that was still in draft phase, i.e. Tarantino allusively saying he felt he'd been spotted creatively naked, he's so adorable I think, I mean the guy loves movies, that simple, and anyway having been through all that already I'm like whatever, bring me The Hateful Eight, you're in I'm in let's do this

Yeah, I mean it's still Tarantino so I will be there opening day no matter what but just saying this trailer doesn't do anything to stoke my excitement. And the limited setting gives me concern as 'movies that are more like plays' is a pet peeve of mine.

My whole point is QT isn't well suited for historical dramas. All his films are word plays and examples of various conversation pieces. In Inglorious Basterds, a lot of the film is suited around dinner banter and the pretense of formalities. Luis Bunuel played up the banality of such focus by dumbing down the word play. I feel half of Basterds is casually doing similar mocking but also Tarantino trying to make such situations interesting. He can't have an anarchy approach like Bunuel. He cares a lot more for his characters and tries to define them in every sense too. For me, and what Tarantino does well, it isn't very good with the historical dramas. Just not his strong suit. He does well at writing characters verbose in off handed talking, casual references, and effortless transitions between characters that feel natural but still stylized in a way that attunes to good writing.

For me, when Tarantino does historical dramas and knowingly taking on one genre, his interest is half in the mechanics of the plot working and half in the dialogue amongst the characters. I also don't think he's that good at writing for historical characters. The writing isn't as natural. I don't care for Death Proof because of the B movie set up. It's throwaway idea for me. I actually really love the movie because of the simple interactions between the three characters who take up the second half of the film. Not only is Tarantino is allowing for natural writing, but he's doing it well for female characters. That was very new for him considering his previous endeavors with female characters were limited to scenes or genre depictions (most of Kill Bill).

The first thing I had to do was forgive it for being a western. That's a hard part, for sure. Didn't QT say he wanted to make three westerns? Well didn't he also say other things, including for example a romantic movie set in Iceland, something like that, and I was into him moving past this idea but this is where he wants to be and I just deal with it, but I know what you mean.

The first thing I had to do was forgive it for being a western. That's a hard part, for sure. Didn't QT say he wanted to make three westerns? Well didn't he also say other things, including for example a romantic movie set in Iceland, something like that, and I was into him moving past this idea but this is where he wants to be and I just deal with it, but I know what you mean.

well, he will only make 10 films. imagine that his last two films will be a romantic comedy set in iceland and that cowgirls in sweden thing.

Yeah, hey, I long for neon tech and city, so QT lives off my map anyway, and he used to be so good with modern cinema but he's like five steps behind Sion Sono, but I'd rather grandpa keep talking crazy than grandpa stop talking. Everyone we've got to support grandpa. He'll leave us one day. He likes to talk about wintry cabins whatever, how is that not a little cute? Wanting to talk about people hanging in a wintry cabin is definition of a little cute, I'm glad we'll all be in it together around Christmas this year, in 70mm, it's like QT has 70 problems but cinema ain't one, hit it, it's exactly like that, I'm looking forward to it still. Good chat.

I got excited when I saw that one shot that was leaked but I stand by what I said originally this movie looks bad. I do not like the Richardson + Tarantino marriage, the movie's cinematography is actually bad given the material and I regard Richardson as a MASTER but his style for this type of movie is not suited well, as it was not suited for DJANGO UNCHAINED and INGLORIOUS BASTERDS, it was suited for KILL BILL. I do not like how he made Daisy into this cartoon character, its like he writes these amazing scripts and then he fucking kills them, eh it so hard to put into words. I am excited to see this movie for the E.M collaboration, thats a real victory for Q.T! Whats annoying is all these trailers using hip-hop to sell their movie to an "urban" audience/ general public, its pretty whack, like in the trailer for Black Mass, whack attack! The 2pac-RICK ROSS( RICK ROSS, so fuckng lame) during the really cool shootout in Django Unchained, I always watch that scene on mute.

It will be interesting to see the movie in ULTRA PANAVISION but judging by the trailer, something you should never do, the movie does not make great use of the format, and I bet people will be like WTF is the difference, and if the movie turns out to be be lame then it will do it the format more harm than good.Most of the movies shot on the format were not good, the Ben Hur remake is probably the best movie shot on the format. THE REAL DOPE FORMAT was CINERAMA, I do not know why some technicians have not figured out how to get that process into two cameras or one, in Russia some camera techs developed what I think is probably the coolest film format for entertainment/multiplexes( i love film, 2d that is but I am open to the possibilities of stereoscopic motion picture) its called STEREO-70 not a lot of information on it but from researching it, if I had the opportunity to make a big budget movie within the studio system I would totally opt for STEREO 70mm, whether I would shot with STEREOSCOPIC STEREO 70 that is another story. ( it would obviously be in 65mm and projected in 70mm.)

I will still go out and see this but Q.T has really disappointed me lately, I love reading his scripts and I think he is one of the best screenwriters in hollywood but his directing is not good and his choice in assembling his teams( crew ) is poor, on paper its a dream team but in practice the result is flat.

so i read the script like everyone else and this is basically django meets reservoir dogs. this trailer is a fucking abomination. i didnt think hed ever get this horrible. but we will all see it, godammit....

Over the weekend, Christopher Nolan firmly weighed in on the analog vs. digital debate, and came down on the side of film stock, specifically praising Quentin Tarantino and his plan to first roll out "The Hateful Eight" in 70mm only in select cinemas before opening the movie wide everywhere digitally. Now Tarantino has provided an extra incentive to see his western in his preferred format.

“The roadshow version has an overture and an intermission, and it will be three hours, two minutes,” Tarantino told Variety. “The multiplex version is about six minutes shorter, not counting the intermission time, which is about 12 minutes.”

So what changes are being made? According to the director, it's in how certain scenes will be edited for television versus the big screen. "I actually changed the cutting slightly for a couple of the multiplex scenes because it’s not that. Now it’s on Showtime Extreme. You’re watching it on TV and you just kind of want to watch a movie on your couch,” the director said of the sequences that in the 70mm version will breathe a little more in “big, long, cool, unblinking takes.”

“It was awesome in the bigness of 70, but sitting on your couch, maybe it’s not so awesome. So I cut it up a little bit. It’s a little less precious about itself,” he added.

Tarantino hopes that a successful opening run in 70mm will pave the way for more filmmakers to utilize the format, and the plan is to show "The Hateful Eight" in all its analog glory in 100 theaters across the country.

Q: Does the interviewer use his own mentioning of the tv topic to express his personal opinion about tv?A: Yes, BEE is the interviewer.

Q: So really this interview isn't so much about QT's vision as about BEE's vision of his vision?A: Yeah, somehow BEE thinks his obsessions with art as a cultural force is more important than art itself, which is ridiculous.

Q: Does he even bring up the Oscars?A: He does.

Q: Why read this interview?A: Because QT isn't BEE: "If people don’t like my movies, they don’t like my movies, and if they don’t get it, it doesn’t matter."

Q: The 2006 Mustang GT from Death Proof?A: Yes.

Q: Is it common for hipsters to smoke outside the New Bev?A: BEE saw a few people standing outside smoking because it's the goddamn law to smoke outside. The vast majority of hipsters practice their yoga and/or meditation. The problem with BEE's culture chats is you can't read from the inside a culture you only see from the outside.

Q: Relative to the number of smokers, is the common New Bev audience a "young audience" of "kids"?A: What BEE thinks he notices are forces of the present that affect the future. I suspect he's mentioning the "kids" for the article to appeal to kids and to demonstrate concerns about the future of the movie medium, but there's no way in hell two Chaplin movies played in LA without elderly people in attendance. What should make a person worry less about BEE's worries is he has the problem of noticing something then expanding in his head its size and importance, and culture isn't controlled by BEE's head though we know he tries his best.

Q: Does QT have friendly chats with anyone who approaches him?A: Never have I seen QT not engage in a friendly chat with a person who approached him for whatever reason.

There has been much spilled ink about the efforts by Tarantino, Christopher Nolan, Paul Thomas Anderson, and others to save film stock and when they can, project on film as well. But the hurdle will always be convincing audiences they are truly getting a noticeably different and presumably better experience than seeing something digitally. There's still a couple of weeks to go, but let's hope for the sake of "The Hateful Eight" and the investment made to bring back a long dormant format, that audiences will be getting some special, without any issues, or the big comeback of 70mm may be over before it ever really starts.

Welcome back to Planet Quentin, a self-contained universe of cinematic pastiche, outrageous dialogue, cartoonish violence and labyrinthine storytelling that plows ahead while veering off on tangents every which way. These vibrant ingredients have been the touchstones of Tarantino's oeuvre for nearly 25 years, but "The Hateful Eight" unleashes them in a wild, unvarnished stream of possibilities. This is not a filmmaker whose work tends to show signs of compromise, but the unwieldy excesses of "The Hateful Eight" proves he can get away with anything.

While "The Hateful Eight" meanders, it never drags. Tarantino has ostensibly constructed a slow-burn whodunit sped up by the vivacity of his characters. Interlocking agendas collide when a pair of bounty hunters show up at a cabin in the midst of a snowstorm, where their fellow stranded travelers form a suspicious bunch. Everyone's a suspect, but nobody's entirely innocent. During the aforementioned first hour, the filmmaker gradually establishes the Wyoming-set world of post-Civil War attitudes, and it's no surprise to find that they aren't pretty.

From the trailer - at least, cause this is just a perception, since haven't seen the movie yet and honestly i am not sure I will eventually - it looks like more than a homage (especially with those great 70mm Panavision visuals) of Robert Altman's masterpiece "McCabe & Mrs.Miller" minus all the incredible insightful character's development, the stunning lirycal story telling, and, profound affecting disillusionment, so rich of texture and classic political undertones and romantic idealism so characterizing Altman's unforgettable epic, highly personal vision, social commentary and ground breaking filmmaking .

This film was so much fun! He's really not taking himself seriously with this one. It's like he made an x-rated christmas pantomime - a farcical Western-set Reservoir Dogs. I can't say it's a deep movie, it clearly isn't, but it doesn't have a drop of pretension in its pores so I can't hold that against it. Like a Mel Brooks flick with the bloodshed of a Peckinpah. I loathed Django, so i'm really surprised to find myself enjoying this so much. For me it's easily his best film since Jackie Brown.

From the trailer - at least, cause this is just a perception, since haven't seen the movie yet and honestly i am not sure I will eventually - it looks like more than a homage (especially with those great 70mm Panavision visuals) of Robert Altman's masterpiece "McCabe & Mrs.Miller" minus all the incredible insightful character's development, the stunning lirycal story telling, and, profound affecting disillusionment, so rich of texture and classic political undertones and romantic idealism so characterizing Altman's unforgettable epic, highly personal vision, social commentary and ground breaking filmmaking .

wtf is wrong with people.

Yeah it is so wrong that is it funny. Speaking of influences, I think mainly of John Carpenter's The Thing - the setting, themes, Kurt Russel, Ennio Morricone and so on. You can find even few takes that doesn't make much sense plot wise, but feel like a direct reference. This ain't far fetched (just jump to 9:26):

Hah, good call! It does have a bit of a Thing vibe, especially the just don't fall asleep hook...

Rewatched it in the same day. A 3 hour movie too! Can't remember the last time I did that. It really does breeze by, 170 minutes feel like 90. Jennifer Jason Leigh is the stand out I think, but everyone's pulling their weight here.

this is pretty great and almost makes up for the unpleasantry that was Django Unchained, the irony being that in some ways, this is tarantino's most repugnant movie. utterly nihilistic and immensly entertaining for it. Tarantino's at his best when he isn't trying to uphold ideals outside of cinema. here we find him a pig in shit, and I loved (almost) every minute of it. pretty sure it'll play better out of the roadshow format. ennio morricone done real good, and the song that closes the movie is as perfect as you got for that type of thing.

So, from where I sit, we should discuss QT in a few different capacities.He's sort of like Plato.

(Early QT)The first being that Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown are one period (Sure, throw True Romance and Natural Born Killers in there, but they'll still lend themselves to this argument).

The 2nd period is Kill Bill(which I call early 2nd period), Death Proof, Inglorious Bastards and Django Unchained (Middle QT) .

Supposedly he's going to make 10 films then do other shit, so I count "The Hateful Eight" as his 8th film, and i'm going to say we've reached the Late QT phase.

What does that mean? This film isn't based on being a stylistic combative reaction to the cinematic norm (RD & PF), nor is it an extreme shock based revenge fantasy. The revenge we as an audience experience in IB and DU does not need to be set up in the same extensive way that Beatrix Kiddo's tale does. That's a simple fact. I can illicit an emotional response no matter what I do if my film is about re writing history in such a way as to have Hitler assassinated (you guessed it) by a Jewish woman. The same can be said about a film that takes place in the antebellum south and features a black protagonist that becomes a bounty hunter to kill not only the people who enslaved him and kidnapped his wife but other white people who endorsed the disgraceful act of slavery...yada yada yada. I'm not discounting QT, he's great. I'm saying The Hateful Eight is a new phase.

This film is as much a western as Kendrick Lamar's "to pimp a butterfly" is a jazz record.

Both works of art use the genres mentioned however neither fully commit nor do they rely on or have any interest in committing to the boundaries that come along with those genres. QT is showing us how efficiently his toolbox can be used. It's not flashy. It sure as hell doesn't feel like 3 hours, and nobody dies until like 20 seconds before the 1st intermission.

The blocking of this film is as impressive anything I've ever seen. QT has certain freedoms that some of those older (set piece driven) dramatists didn't have the technology to achieve. This is to say that way the audience discovers the layout of the main set piece in the film is done very well. The restricted/unrestricted knowledge is used perfectly.

I don't know, i'm kind of freaking out because I think this is his best film, hands down.

I need to read over this thread, but I haven't been on here in so long, I've not read what anyone's said, nor had I even seen so much as a trailer before going into the theater.

In retrospect, after almost deleting everything I just typed I'd like to say that this is QT at his best and most mature, and by mature it seems like he's got nothing to prove. It's not as if some action sequence stands out, or some dialogue piece stands out, it's a very well put together film that unfolds in a very satisfying way. You still get hints of the QT aspects you love, but here he's trying to wow in ways that only cinema can provide, and in such a way that it still feels exciting. The film moves forward very eloquently.

Lots more i'd like to say but it's four thir-tay. on a tues-dayyyy

Edit: I was so drunk when i typed this that I forgot QT made Death Proof, so i added that into his middle phase.

I don't know, i'm kind of freaking out because I think this is his best film, hands down.

when the movie ended this was my initial thought, but i shook it off as hyperbolic silliness. now that i've sat with it a few days and it's festered in my brain, i'm kind of convinced that this tarantino's magnum opus.

wish i shared your enthusiasm, but i found this movie very boring and a bit of a mixed bag. i'll dash off some thoughts..

SO MANY SPOILERS!

-the 70mm looked great, and the photography in general is a step above his recent output... felt a lot more naturalistic, as opposed to django which i thought looked bizarre and over-lit... this might be the best LOOKING thing he's done... -the morricone! loved the score, though qt doesn't use it that much, doesn't really develop the themes, and instead uses some jack white song or something at some point. this matters to me, i think its very uncool. -really liked the pace... there's not really another QT movie that MOVES like this. its slow, methodic (at least in its setup)... inglourious basterds obviously has some extended scenework, controlling tempo through dialogue, but QT pushes it all the way here... its like one of the sequences from basterds but for the entire 3 hours... the story shape QT uses is very appealing to me, even though i ultimately feel like the CONTENT of the story is pretty useless...-my favorite scene in the movie is when they're outside setting up the rope as it gets dark.. the wind is whipping, the morricone is blaring, QT and bob richardson zone out on the men doing their work - again, takes it time - maybe i'm the wrong audience member if my favorite part of a QT movie is the part where no one talks... -i loved the parts where QT narrated. I found this endearing. Thought these sections were most fun, had some verve and pop that most of the movie lacked... -thought the story was flat! i was with it for the first hour, but the twists and revelations in part 2 were not very satisfying. for example, bruce dern's character. why was he there, other than to provide sam with his moment at the end of part 1? in part 2, we learn more about dern's place in the habberdashery, but for what? he's already dead and has no bearing on the story.

can't help but be biased since i've heard QT talk about writing hateful 8 - he wrote with no outline (nbd), and let the story come to him as he wrote, so - in his words - when QT gets to minnie's haberdashery, he, like john ruth and co, doesn't know a thing about the characters in the haberdahsery. well it felt like that! it has an around-the-campfire vibe to it, in that the storyteller is finding the story in the process of telling it, and throws in a good, juicy detail right when he notices you nodding off... i imagine QT narrating the whole thing.. "oh yeah, but i forgot to mention - this WHOLE time channing tatum has been waiting in the basement and he shoots sam jackson's nuts off!!!" These don't feel like dramatic turns as much as ways to kind of reinvent a stalled story. -the dialogue is what it is. i was not offended by the N word, but i was also not especially tickled by any of the dialogue. my least favorite moment was minnie talking about her big booty, an anachronism that seemed to go over with well the crowd. i suppose those of you who had fun mostly liked the words, right? what were your favorite parts?

What a treat to top off the colossally shitty year that was 2015. I needed every ounce of this movie. Not just as a fan of cinema, but as a man trying to make sense of the lowly prospects these times have to offer. I just felt so refreshed, firstly by the snow. We didn't have any on the ground here until December 27th. It was like some sort of apocalyptic hell, to experience 70 degree weather in December. No one understood wtf was going on, then it finally began to fall and we carried on with our typical complaints about it. I admired QT's wishes to shoot a film where we aren't being blasted by the San Fernando Valley sun at every waking moment. It seemed to be a mark of true maturity, that he'd venture into such foreign territory to create this perfect atmosphere. I was just kind of basking in the glory of all that until the true signature of the man showed it's face: his use of the dreaded 'N' word. Really, at first you think "What does this guy have to prove, always throwing this word around?" If you look back on his filmography, he always has to sprinkle it in there. I don't think 'Kill Bill' features it, and that's probably because it's set in cartoon fantasyland. What came to me while watching this is that he simply wants to push our buttons, grab our attention. Whether it be by the use of extreme violence, profanity, corrupted behavior, he's going to keep us watching. What's interesting about the use of that word in this movie is that it has a particular sting because we're only dealing with one major black character, who also happens to be our protagonist. So, whenever it is dropped you can feel the time bomb start ticking of when that character is going to receive their comeuppance. We're not dealing with your average 'black man', but a former slave who made his way to top of the military ranks and has spent his entire life proving that he is not 'that word'. It's not a question of 'If' someone will be punished for calling him that, but 'When?'. Therein lies the crux of suspense in the story. It's a very funny movie, ( really, which of his isn't? ) but I noticed he never used that word as a punchline. The brashness of the characters saying it may in itself be, but the desired effect is not to make the audience guffaw at it being uttered ( although I'm sure in Mississippi, many will. ) I think what QT has been trying to do with these last 3 films is rub our faces in the mud of history a little bit in an attempt to wake us up to how these systems we operate in came to be. He's not lying when he chooses to display such atrocities, but he DOES want to entertain the hell out of us. More than that, he aims to provoke. He wants us to squirm in our seats at the sound of his words and the grotesquery of his violence knowing that we'll all leave the theater with an experience we're eager to talk about. Really, what more could you ask of a movie?

There is so much beyond this I want to go into, but to comment on any of the plot points would be superfluous right now. It's a movie I'll probably see 5 more times this year. I have plenty more to say, but with this small review I just want to give our man a pat on the back for doing us yet another solid.

Question: Why didn't Minnie seem angry about the Mexican being there during the 'earlier that morning' sequence? After that big speech from Sam Jackson about the "No dogs or Mexicans" sign? Did I miss something? Was that just another instance of Sam Jackson's character making something up to hopefully catch him in a lie? I thought he was telling the truth at that point.

bruce dern's character. why was he there, other than to provide sam with his moment at the end of part 1? in part 2, we learn more about dern's place in the habberdashery, but for what? he's already dead and has no bearing on the story.

I think by the end of Part 1, after General Sandy Smithers is shot, which is the first death of the film, the audience asks the same question you do. That's sort of the point. The answer turns out to be a common theme found in film, which is the unpredictable human element that adds chaos to a planned event. Also, the idea that the gang took him in to "look more natural" doesn't strike a chord with you? I think it's hilarious, and it's a nuance like this reminds me of something in Hitchcock's "Dial 'M' for Murder," when Tony's clock battery dies. In a movie full of wild cards, while the tensions rise, Dern's character is the catalyst or Wild Card that pushes the narrative forward because of happenstance. First act of violence in a room full of questionable liars, so we ask why was he there? Turns out he's a General in the Confederacy looking for his son who, "would've already been home had he done what he set out to do, (paraphrase)," and he's got no business being in the middle of that situation in the first place but he coincidentally turns out to be someone with whom Warren shared a battlefield. Not only does it give Major Marquis Warren a nice speech, but it also builds tension through the same sort of serendipitous chaos I'm describing because that whole situation between Warren and Smithers diverts not only the attention of the audience but some of the characters too. In Chapter 3 when Warren is telling a Confederate General that his son sucked his dick, and never gave him the blanket, the coffee gets poisoned. After the coffee is poisoned the shit hits the fan and the plot moves quicker exponentially. That's the best I can do. But I haven't read/watched/listened all the interviews of his about this film, so perhaps i'm reaching.

Question: Why didn't Minnie seem angry about the Mexican being there during the 'earlier that morning' sequence? After that big speech from Sam Jackson about the "No dogs or Mexicans" sign? Did I miss something? Was that just another instance of Sam Jackson's character making something up to hopefully catch him in a lie? I thought he was telling the truth at that point.

I didn't notice how she reacted to him, but did find it odd that a black woman would be as discriminating as Warren claims. I just chalked it up to a "eh, they were different times" at first, but I think you're right that he was lying. Really, Warren is tired of everyone ganging up on him with that goddamned N word and needs to do some of his own bullying. So, he not only intends to take these men's lives but completely get into their heads before doing it. He even says it in that derogatory way "Metskin", I'd never heard it like that before. It's always bad when you have 'skin' in the word to categorize a group of people.

As you watch the movie, it becomes more and more apparent that practically everyone is spinning a web of lies when they open their mouths. The only honest member of the 8 is John Ruth. In fact, it's convenient that his character dies off early on so we don't have to deal with the icky situation of whether he's going to rape Daisy that night, which is probably his only hidden agenda that luckily we don't have to reckon with as an audience.

A strange and unique piece of filmmaking. I wish that Jennifer Jason Leigh had more quentin tarantino talking scenes but her monologue was incredible. saw it in 70mm and was impressed by how it was presented.

bruce dern's character. why was he there, other than to provide sam with his moment at the end of part 1? in part 2, we learn more about dern's place in the habberdashery, but for what? he's already dead and has no bearing on the story.

Spoilers

In terms of plot, no, he has little bearing. Luckily, Tarantino got more to focusing on idiosyncrasies in personality and situations over plot in this film. I didn't remember this film for the big reveal two thirds of the way through or how the plot did a full 180, but how unpredictable the story was scene from scene. His last two films trudged a lot through the story and felt too standard for me because I knew what was generally coming, but one thing I at least liked about Death Proof is how in the moment the scenes were. It's Tarantino's best talent and he plays to better effect in this film. Definitely his best historical film. He should finally move on now because I don't think he's going to top this.

i'd like to start off by apologizing to those who asked me for the copy of the script i had. i'm not sure exactly where it is and obviously cannot redownload it, but i'm sorry for not getting back to you guys.

so i've had huge problems with attempting to review this film.i'm not really sure exactly how i feel about it, so maybe by the end of this i will come to some kind of conclusion.

my gut reaction is that i hate it, but i'd like to dissect why i do, because i really hate disliking a tarantino film.he's the pulp fiction guy, he made reservoir dogs, he's one of the most admired and ripped off and icon filmmakers of our time. you have certain expectations when you go into one of his films. not like scorsese or fincher or whoever where you know they're amazing filmmakers but anything could happen, good or bad. this is one of those guys where you have a fairly solid idea of whats going to go down, how its going to look, certain signatures of the mans style.

this felt like tarantino fan fiction, by the man himself.what surprised me was that i had already read the script, already knew what was going to happen, that it had already been written out and structured, BUT it still felt like a fucking freestyle randomly written on the fly piece of static bullshit.

examples:"you have a letter from lincoln?""yes""abraham lincoln?""yes""the president?""yes""of the united states?""yes""of america?"

"oui""what does that mean?""yes"

i mean, jesus fucking christ. this is a man whose dialogue heavy films made every other director in the nineties ejaculate in their pants and attempt to recreate it. the dialogue in this film is so boring and stretched out and completely uncreative.the blowjob story is obviously supposed to be the watch story, the explanation of the bible verse, the radio station bet from death proof, the conversation with the french dude in basterds, and it failed immensely. it felt like the most half assed, half handed, pathetic attempt at an iconic moment. and it really genuinely angered me. this man is a very intelligent writer, and i felt fucking cheated.

how is it that he can almost effortlessly create these fascinating conversations that implant themselves eternally into our culture and then come up with some bullshit about sucking dick? i mean seriously who gives a fuck? he's creating these characters without even knowing what he's going to do with them."yeah lets have bruce dern be there. why? well he's part of the story. lets make him have a past with this one guy. which one? i dont know we'll figure it out. and then later we'll explain why he's there. we'll make it work. trust me.""so why doesn't he just kill those other guys? well, we'll make it so he needs to not kill them.why would he trust that guy? he's obviously not trusting. well we'll make it so maybe he trusts them kind of even though he's willing to kill anyone that interferes."

and who the fuck is this bob guy? he is hands down the most boring mexican of all fucking time. and he looks like and sounds like a fucking white guy.i was legimitately confused, i thought it was a joke, like oh we're gonna have this one guy pretend to be mexican and one pretend to be british, kind of thing. but no, he was just awkward and horrible and had zero personality.the bartender in pulp fiction had more personality and believability in his less than ten minute scene than half the actors in this three hour long piece of shit.

these characters are so confusing. why in gods name are they doing this elaborate story?"yeah we're gonna come to this place and kill everyone there in cold blood to save this chick but the one guy that has her we're just going to do this long weird fiction that ends up with him dead anyway even though we've had a million opportunities to just kill him and take the chick." in the very beginning we establish that the main characters are willing to kill no matter what to accomplish their business. so why in the fuck does this story even exist? and vice fucking versa!!! why don't the gang just fucking kill them the second they pull in?!?!

it seriously makes no sense. who gives a fuck about anything that happens in this movie? why is he not making us care? how did he make us care so much about all of his other characters in his other films but with his latest he just creates these empty vapid people who have no purpose or value?

and what the fuck is up with people mispronouncing names?is that supposed to be funny? because it's really just annoying and stupid. marquis is pronounced motherfucking mar kee and domergue is not pronounced goddamn dahmer goo. if it's supposed to be cute or westerny or whatever, it fucking failed. everytime they say each others names wrong i feel like i'm watching a little kid pretend to be a filmmaker.

the whole four passengers sequence was obviously qt figuring out he wrote himself into a corner and trying to make the best of it.

i've seen it three times now, rewatching soon, i'm really hoping that i can eventually enjoy it, but i am absolutely shocked at how much you guys liked it.

I agree with your points 03, I was disappointed too. Found myself in stride with Matt Zollier Seitz's review (http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-hateful-eight-2015), beginning with the paragraph "The problem isn't how Tarantino tells the story..."

and who the fuck is this bob guy? he is hands down the most boring mexican of all fucking time. and he looks like and sounds like a fucking white guy.

So he came off as a white guy even though he's the only Mexican in the film.Interesting first impression of Demian Bichir.

I don't disagree with you on most of your points, btw. Certain things were good, certain things were "oooh look at this mooooovie (And I know you WILL because I've gotcha all hooked from my previous efforts)".

In fairness, I pretty much agree about "the Mexican," the actor's actual ethnicity notwithstanding. His accent was over the top and his face was barely visible, like he was wearing a costume and putting on an act. I was sincerely waiting for the reveal that he was not Mexican.

some of you will harshly judge me for this, but Bob is my favorite character. I laughed at almost everything he said the first time, because it's such an over the top accent and dialect that you can immediately sense something is fishy with him, yet he remains likable throughout. When Warren starts to smell bullshit in his story and we realize Bob has no place there at all, it's kind of impressive how promptly he was able to take charge of the situation even if that doesn't hold up for long. Then when Warren finds out who he was really dealing with later on, chuckles to himself like, "Damn. He almost had me"

I noticed he never used (The 'N' word) as a punchline. The brashness of the characters saying it may in itself be, but the desired effect is not to make the audience guffaw at it being uttered ( although I'm sure in Mississippi, many will. )

This is interesting, because on second viewing with a much smaller crowd I noticed a woman in the back LAUGHING HER ASS OFF every time that word was said. At first it made me think "Damn. My theory is wrong" but then, I considered the possibility that she might be black and it's just hilarious to hear white people saying it ( because we're not allowed to anymore )

My late thoughts (spoilers live below)I've seen this in 70mm twice now. Loved it both times, but brought my girlfriend along the second time and she found it boring. It should be noted that she normally really likes any movie I suggest (including all the Tarantino we've watched together), but she especially didn't like this one and felt that all the dialogue was written in monolog for the most part.

- Both times I saw it, the audience laughed at the most inappropriate parts. The first couple handfuls of time the N-word was dropped got a laugh and Domergue's "Monkey's Uncle" line got a huge laugh. Unlike Tarantino's earlier films, where it seemed to be an attempt to be shocking/edgy, this time around seems to be brutal and intense and shoving it in our faces that we don't live in a post-racial society. It's supposed to be ugly, so why are so many people in "liberal" Austin, TX laughing so much? (most of the people laughing were white).

- This is a beautifully shot and paced film, but I don't think it's his best. Maybe not even in the top three for me. Still amazing.

- It's been pointed out that the originally leaked screenplay didn't have the reveal of the Lincoln letter being a lie. I've been washing that around in my brain and am curious about other people's thoughts on the significance of that.

My late thoughts (spoilers live below)I've seen this in 70mm twice now. Loved it both times, but brought my girlfriend along the second time and she found it boring. It should be noted that she normally really likes any movie I suggest (including all the Tarantino we've watched together), but she especially didn't like this one and felt that all the dialogue was written in monolog for the most part.

- Both times I saw it, the audience laughed at the most inappropriate parts. The first couple handfuls of time the N-word was dropped got a laugh and Domergue's "Monkey's Uncle" line got a huge laugh. Unlike Tarantino's earlier films, where it seemed to be an attempt to be shocking/edgy, this time around seems to be brutal and intense and shoving it in our faces that we don't live in a post-racial society. It's supposed to be ugly, so why are so many people in "liberal" Austin, TX laughing so much? (most of the people laughing were white).

- This is a beautifully shot and paced film, but I don't think it's his best. Maybe not even in the top three for me. Still amazing.

- It's been pointed out that the originally leaked screenplay didn't have the reveal of the Lincoln letter being a lie. I've been washing that around in my brain and am curious about other people's thoughts on the significance of that.

rk im really glad you said that bc that's a huge deal about the lincoln letter. i remember that from reading the original script and the change is very awkward. i'm not sure really what is gained by making the protagonist into a liar. i think it would have had more power if it was true. nothing much would really have to be changed. and now that i'm thinking about it, the last scene would have been close to tearful if the letter was left real.

also: when are we going to talk about this horrible golden globe thing, or did i miss an existent post?

Well, when John discovers that the letter is false he is hearbroken and Jackson is shaken...that's why he goes insane and kills Dern after his horrifying story. Because for John, without the letter, he is just another "nigger". And a lot of stories in this movie are false. The Lincoln letter is another one.

Gotta see this again because in all honesty it took me a while to get into the film's tempo and vibe (the film takes it's own sweet time too) but then it EXPLODES and in retrospect it's an amazing movie. As an audience you are totally in the hands of a master.

I don't think it's an empty film at all, there's plenty of stuff to chew on politically, historically, it's a pretty angry and disenchanted view of America by tarantino. One instance comes up by comparing the violence in Django to this, and identify the differences. Django had "levels" or diverse ways to portray violence: the one inflicted by the white racists on blacks, the one inflicted by the hero on his enemies, and then one inflicted from black man to black man (as in the mud fights) where it was considerably more "realistic" and painful. Here it's all equally over the top and senseless; justice (a concept a character makes a monologue about) is not only never served, but it turns out it's barely a ghost, as any other edifying concept of human nature. It's weird because most latinamerican reviews I've read totally get all that stuff and deal with it while american reviews mostly concentrate on describing the film as a western and a "whodunnit"...

I liked a this paragraph from Roger Koza's review (one of latinamerica's most respected critics), which is I think a nice contrast to that weird Matt Zoller review, as many other americans, so absurdly concerned with PC and wether is "right" or if there are enough "reasons" for an artist to use the word "nigger" or show violence more than 20 years after Pulp Fiction. I had to translate it (and this was not a rave review by the way, but Koza's style is closer to Jonathan Rosenbaum in that often what's written is more an analysis than a value judgement):

"Because everyone here is evil, the only antagonist remains out of the frame, even though his voice will be heard spectrally during the ending. The Herald of Good and the promise of fraternity travels metaphorically in the chest of one of the bounty hunters, the only african american. His mercilessness is incompatible with the kindness expressed in a missive written by Abraham Lincoln. But the film's point of view gets confusingly resolved when the the letter's content is revealed, being read at just the right time and with an elevated travelling pulling back, imposing rejection and refuting (the director's supposed) cult towards violence. The political pessimism of a progressive caveman like Tarantino becomes clear for a moment and retraces - even if it bothers the moralist - his characters's misanthropy, which is not his.

American cinema always goes back to the story of their nation. Filming history is the first mission recognised by filmmakers, a tradition starting with D.W. Griffith which was always linked to the western genre. Here is a disenchanted counterpoint to films like Lincoln and Bridge of Spies, Spielberg's latest effort to seal faith in the Republic. Tarantino painfully disbelieves in justice without fire and in any other value besides the fetishism for the coin. The soft defence of family as an institution insinuated in The Hateful Eight is barely a resource too conservative to reencounter with Lincoln's road. Barbarity has triumphed, and his best interpreter, and perhaps representative knows how to film it in it's own terms."

Really baffled me how many of you liked it. Sorry to be so late to the party. I always defended Tarantino as a director who, like Von Trier, has the ability to make the audience hyper aware of the artifices of his films but still has the audience buy into the film. Well I guess he forgot to do that this time. This was a film I did not get the point of. the whole thing is actually kinda Dane Cookish in how he's convinced that he's telling jokes and obviously people are roaring but I not only failed to laugh - I struggle to find the point in these elaborate setups. I was annoyed but didn't hate it because I appreciate Tarantino. I would venture to guess that if you guys hasn't seen his work and started with this you'd hate this movie.